The "surge" is a success?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


They were never lifted because the western powers wanted him out but were smart enough in 1991 not to try it militarily without long term plans.

Sure makes you wonder why noone ever gave "long term plans" any thought, doesn't it?

[Kidlicious]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by
c) US is worse than Saddam

The US has more power, especially now, so yea it's worse, by a long shot.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


No. Success for the surge can only be measured in how it is or is not achieving its purpose, which is to buy time during which the various factions of Iraqis are to seek national reconciliation.

Congress set out 18 goals. The GAO is reporting that 3 of them are being met.

So what are the 18 goals and which 3 have been met? Based on your statement alone we can't judge whether this is good or bad since we don't know the relative difficulty or importance of the goals that have been met or unmet, nor do we know the rate at which they're being accomplished. At best we can say we're sorta 16.66% on our way to "Mission Accomplished".

Oh, and I like the way that the GAO is now setting our goals. My God, the war really is being run by bean counters! This could be every bit as sensational as when the Vietnam War was being scored acording to body counts. You remember how wonderful that was and where it ultimately led?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Oh, and I like the way that the GAO is now setting our goals. My God, the war really is being run by bean counters! This could be every bit as sensational as when the Vietnam War was being scored acording to body counts. You remember how wonderful that was and where it ultimately led?

This is the heart of the matter, I'm afraid. The GAO was the best available tool for the congress. That said, it's a pretty poor tool for the job, and the congress should have refrained from dealing itself a losing hand on this one. Already, it is making the congress look out of touch.

The congress should not have allowed itself to be a sideshow for the part of the military that isn't calling the shots on Iraq (mentioned above). There's a fascinating front page article in the WaPo about this important infighting about whether the US is to fight a proper counter-insurgency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801846.html?hpid=topnews

[Zkribbler]

Oh, and I like the way that the GAO is now setting our goals.

Congress set the goals, as part of the supplemental procurement of funds. The Government Accounting Office was merely reporting on whether the conditions for funding had been met.